{"id":528,"date":"2006-08-24T10:44:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-24T10:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2006\/08\/24\/death-and-body-mass-index\/"},"modified":"2006-08-24T10:44:00","modified_gmt":"2006-08-24T10:44:00","slug":"death-and-body-mass-index","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2006\/08\/24\/death-and-body-mass-index\/","title":{"rendered":"Death and Body Mass Index"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In the comments to the <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2006\/08\/what_do_you_mean_by_normal.php\">recent post on BMI<\/a>, commenter Colst pointed to another study of mortality and BMI that found significantly higher risks for overweight people. Today, I see that Kevin Beck at Dr. Bushwell&#8217;s Chimpanzee refuge has a post describing what I think is the same study, with the title <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/bushwells\/2006\/08\/risk_of_death_much_higher_in_o.php\">Risk of death much higher in overweight and obese<\/a>. Which is true, if you look at the data in the right way.<\/p>\n<p>Kevin posted a bunch of graphs from the study, and I&#8217;ll excerpt two of them to keep things readable. The first is the relative risk of death for all the men in the study, as a function of BMI:<\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/467\/files\/2012\/04\/i-6e0662227c0135031ef0a0081f8928c1-allmenbmi.jpg\" alt=\"i-6e0662227c0135031ef0a0081f8928c1-allmenbmi.jpg\" \/><\/p>\n<p>That seems to put the minimum risk of death at a BMI of around 26, slightly into the &#8220;overweight&#8221; category. So where does the &#8220;much higher&#8221; come from? (Below the fold.)<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The first graph is just a compilation of all the data for all the men in the survey. That by itself doesn&#8217;t mean all that much for researchers, so they break it down by a lot of different factors. Kevin shows a graph of the risk for different age groups, which doesn&#8217;t make much of a difference, but the interesting one is the graph showing people sorted by smoking status:<\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/467\/files\/2012\/04\/i-f3fa50be0a464005f5a86f49d7bad9ca-smokemenbmi.jpg\" alt=\"i-f3fa50be0a464005f5a86f49d7bad9ca-smokemenbmi.jpg\" \/><\/p>\n<p>(This is the only graph to show any real separation between different groups.)<\/p>\n<p>This is really interesting, and kind of weird. The minimum risk of death is around a BMI of 26 or 27 for anybody who ever smoked (whether they smoke now or not), but just under 25 for men who never smoked. What&#8217;s sort of strange here is that there&#8217;s really no difference at all between current and former smokers.<\/p>\n<p>If you cut the data even further, a graph I&#8217;m not going to bother to show, and look at the relative risk to men who never smoked as a function of their BMI at age 50, the minimum shifts over a little more, to between 23 and 24 (still on the high end of &#8220;normal&#8221;). The striking thing about this graph is that the risk increases much more rapidly for this group, and indeed, is almost double the minimum for people at the border between &#8220;overweight&#8221; and &#8220;obese.&#8221; Hence, &#8220;much higher risk.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>(Kevin also posts graphs for women, which are generally similar, though all the curves shift to the left a bit.)<\/p>\n<p>Is this sort of data slicing legitimate? Well, it&#8217;s pretty typical of the analysis of medical studies&#8211; Bob Park has a great riff on the studies that claim to show a connection between power lines and cancer. The numbers in the sample are large enough that you wouldn&#8217;t expect it to cause any really weird problems, and age and smoking status are well-known risk factors that ought to be controlled for. So there&#8217;s nothing really inappropriate about doing these kind of cuts.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, making really sweeping claims based on these cuts is very slightly dodgy. I mean, the relative risk of death really is much higher for male non-smokers who were classified as &#8220;obese&#8221; at age 50 than their thinner counterparts. But then, the difference between the high end of &#8220;normal&#8221; and &#8220;obese&#8221; for a former smoker is much lower&#8211; maybe 30%. So, if you plan to be fat when you&#8217;re fifty, start smoking, and then quit. Or something.<\/p>\n<p>(Actually, don&#8217;t&#8211; the increase in mortality from smoking is probably significantly greater than the effect of weight. These graphs plot relative risk only, and if you look at Kevin&#8217;s graphs, you&#8217;ll see that there were close to ten times as many dead smokers as non-smokers&#8230;)<\/p>\n<p>In the end, there&#8217;s probably something for everyone in this study. No matter how you cut the data, the risk of death is definitely higher for people in the &#8220;obese&#8221; range, so Kevin&#8217;s happy. And even the most impressive cut through the data shows that the minimum risk is to the high end of &#8220;normal,&#8221; which fits with my contention that the target range is a little lower than it should be.<\/p>\n<p>So, um, cookies for everyone!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the comments to the recent post on BMI, commenter Colst pointed to another study of mortality and BMI that found significantly higher risks for overweight people. Today, I see that Kevin Beck at Dr. Bushwell&#8217;s Chimpanzee refuge has a post describing what I think is the same study, with the title Risk of death&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2006\/08\/24\/death-and-body-mass-index\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Death and Body Mass Index<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33,45,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-in_the_news","category-medicine","category-science","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}